Jatra Shekh vs Reazat Shekh And Anr. on 19 September, 1892

Calcutta High Court
Jatra Shekh vs Reazat Shekh And Anr. on 19 September, 1892
Equivalent citations: (1893) ILR 20 Cal 483
Author: P A Hill
Bench: Pigot, Hill


Pigot and Hill, JJ.

1. We think that when the husband is complainant and brings his complaint under Section 366, a conviction under Section 498 may properly be had, if the evidence be such as to justify a conviction for the minor offence, and yet insufficient for a conviction for the graver one. We think that such a case is within the intention of Section 238. The intention of the law is to prevent Magistrates inquiring of their own motion into cases connected with marriage, unless the husband or other person authorised moves them to do so : and we think it cannot be hold that a conviction such as was had in the present case was contrary to the intention of the law in this respect.

2. We do not think we should interfere with the conviction of either prisoner.

3. Although in the present case we do not think we should interfere, we fully agree with the general principle as to the infliction of non-appealable sentences referred to by the Sessions Judge. We observe with approval that the Deputy Magistrate recognizes, and undertakes to follow it, as he says he usually does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *